[Church_of_Christ] Re: Are we misunderstanding the scriptures?
Greetings Norman, ED here
I responded to you in 98795. Your proof as you call it was lacking. It
required an exceptional case that does not fit the norm and the other
required travel. You didn't prove anything. Besides that, even if you
did, what do you accomplish? Nothing. Do you think God cares about your
technicalities?
--- In Church_of_Christ@
wrote:
>
>
> ED wrote: We carried on a lengthy discussion. You offered what you
> believed was proof, I replied and offered what I believe is proof.
>
> Hi Ed,
>
> You may have offered what you believed to be proof, but I offered the
> proof that I promised to offer. I proved there are back-to-back
Sundays,
> because of the IDL and if Christians do not disregard that line they
> must make a decision which Sunday they will observe. Most Christians,
> like you, do not even know that the IDL changes the day they worship.
> How can you ignore something that you don't know exist?
>
> ED wrote: Back and forth it went. We discussed it as thoroughly as I
> believe it can be discussed.
>
> Norman: We did not go back and forth. After I proved there were two
> Sundays back to back. We did not discuss anything, you left!!
>
> ED wrote: In the end we disagree. The discussion thus ended.
>
> Norman: From the time I gave you proof of what you denied was
possible,
> you ended the discussion with questions pending.
>
> You ended the conversation in Message #98795 calling me silly for
> believing the IDL changes the day Christians worship.
>
> ED wrote: I have not accused you of ignoring the evidence I offered
with
> which you disagreed. I have not charged that you did not answer my
> questions. I did not charge you with a methodology of moving to other
> subjects because you are unwilling to face the truth. But you Norman,
do
> all of these. I really wonder about the spirit on one who attacks the
> character of others with whom they disagree.
>
> Norman: Ed, I hope the reason you have not accused me of those things
is
> the fact that I am not guilty of those things.
>
> ED wrote: I have not accused you of ignoring the evidence I offered
with
> which you disagreed.
>
> Norman: ED, have I ever failed to respond to one of your post that was
> addressed to me? I gave you evidence that there are back to back
Sundays
> that makes it impossible for Christians to keep the same day and call
it
> the Lord's Day and you dropped the subject. That is the reason I
> said you are ignoring the evidence I offered that you disagreed with.
>
> ED wrote: I have not charged that you did not answer my questions.
>
> Norman: Ed, is there any questions that you asked that I have not
> answered? There were questions in two posts after you ended your part
of
> the conversation and you did not respond to those questions. That is
the
> reason I said you did not answer my questions.
>
> ED wrote: I did not charge you with a methodology of moving to other
> subjects because you are unwilling to face the truth.
>
> Norman: ED, have I moved to another subject or dropped a subject
without
> responding to your questions and comments? After I had written Message
> #98800 and Message #98871 you continued to post on a daily basis;
> however, I did not see any post from you to answer my questions. Now,
> what are the facts; did you overlook both posts? Did you respond and I
> overlooked both posts? Did you see the post and was unwilling to face
> the truth. You wrote, "But two Sundays in a row? YOU CAN"T DO IT
> BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH LOCATION!!!.
> what am I to believe, that you want to take responsibility for your
> false accusations or am I to believe that you do not want to accept
the
> truth when it is given?
>
> Why am is still bringing it up, because you are still teaching that
the
> Sunday where a person lives is God's first day of the week and you
> teach that God commanded us to keep that day and you teach that you
can
> prove from a two thousand year old book what day they were commanded
to
> keep. Now, the IDL has changed that day by 24 hours and many have had
> the day they worship changed because the world Government moved the
IDL
> and you believe it is foolish talk to even mention it.
>
> If I were giving you a hypothetical citation I could understand why
you
> could say that is only speculation and it can never happen, then, you
> could call it idle talk; however, I am telling you about real people
in
> a real citation. It would be cruel to tell people God commands them to
> keep a certain day and not be able to tell them when that day comes.
>
> ED wrote: But you Norman, do all of these.
>
> Norman: Yes, Ed I did all these and I explained why I did it. If any
> thing I said about you is untrue strike them from the record and ask
for
> an apology, I am not to proud to apologize.
>
> ED wrote: I really wonder about the spirit on one who attacks the
> character of others with whom they disagree.
>
> Norman: ED, that is like the pot calling the kettle black. You called
me
> silly, idle talker, a duck and a liar and you claim I am attacking
your
> character!!
>
> ED, I know you are not required to answer anyone's questions;
> however, it seems strange to me that the minute I give you evidence
that
> you do not want to accept, you drop it like a hot potato.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Norman
>
> --- In Church_of_Christ@
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Greetings Norman, ED responding
> >
> > Norman: You did not answer Maddie's question. Why is that? Is that
> > because you do not want to challenge accepted traditional positions?
> >
> >
> > ED: I failed to understand Maddie's question precisely. I have since
> > responded providing the command to assemble on the first day of the
> > week, book chapter and verses.
> >
> > Norman: That works both ways. That is what you did when I proved
that
> > your traditional one Sunday every seven days does not exist. I
offered
> > proof and when proof was given, you ignored it and moved on and
> continue
> > to peddling your traditional doctrine. You did not answer my
> questions;
> > that seems to be the method you use when you do not want face the
> truth.
> > You should be big enough to take the responsibility for the things
you
> > say that are proven false. Do you really want truth or does your
> > traditional position trump the truth?
> >
> > ED: We carried on a lengthy discussion. You offered what you
believed
> > was proof, I replied and offered what I believe is proof. Back and
> forth
> > it went. We discussed it as thoroughly as I belive it can be
> discussed.
> > In the end we disagree. The discussion thus ended. I have not
accused
> > you of ignoring the evidence I offered with which you disagreed. I
> have
> > not charged that you did not answer my questions. I did not charge
you
> > with a methodology of moving to other subjects because you are
> unwilling
> > to face the truth. But you Norman, do all of these. I really wonder
> > about the spirit on one who attacks the character of others with
whom
> > they disagree.
> >
>
We don't want to see you go, but if you must, the address is Church_of_Christ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Post a Comment